Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1074
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 12 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1074

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:20:06 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=685908

Excerpt: 

A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11 
patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as 
".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday. 

A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched an 
aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for the 
star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the FTC 
said. 

The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged users 
to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the FTC said. 

"These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive spam, 
and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J. Howard 
Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a statement. 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:06:43 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

A response to the FTC's actions: www.adns.net/NEWS/2002031101.html

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:20 AM
Subject: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

>
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=685908
>
> Excerpt:
>
> A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as
> ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
>
> A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched
an
> aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for
the
> star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the FTC
> said.
>
> The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
users
> to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the FTC
said.
>
> "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
spam,
> and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J.
Howard
> Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a statement.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:12:54 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

It is interesting.  TLD Networks is the company operated by Goolnik, 
who was the individual who "duplicated" the .USA and .GOD TLDs.  
However, he never had operational servers so that they would resolve.  The
holders of those original TLDs pursued the issue legally as well.  The FTC
went after Goolnik because fo the spam and deceptive practices as well as
the fact that the domains did not resolve.  The original TLDs operated by
ADNS and PCCF are still going well and the domains resolve as they always
have.  Nether one does any spamming and both are clearly disclaimed as
being in roots other than the USG.

Thanks, Danny, for bringing up the deceptive practices of some 
scammers out there.

Leah

On 11 Mar 2002, at 12:20, [email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=68590
> 8
> 
> Excerpt: 
> 
> A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as
> ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday. 
> 
> A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched
> an aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for
> the star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the
> FTC said. 
> 
> The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
> users to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the
> FTC said. 
> 
> "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
> spam, and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J.
> Howard Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a
> statement. -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in
> the body of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:26:17 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website raises a 
number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies involved are not 
accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" domain names are not 
usable on the Internet, and that they probably never will be useable. 

Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition to 
providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a "coordinator" now 
being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all domains in 
the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being made that 
domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will 
probably never be usable?

Would this claim be applicable to all the registrations previously sold for 
the internationalized domain names that didn't resolve during last year's 
test-bed period?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:30:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

Danny and all assembly members,

  I smell Nuestar's influence here...  I never had a problem
with .USA domain names resolving...

  The full complaint in PDF format can be found here:
 http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/03/tldcmp.pdf
The FTC press report is here:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/03/tld.htm
Please read this carefully and completely.

The Temporary restoring order for this situation is here:
 http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/03/tldtro.pdf

The  (FTC File No. 012 3237) - This is the file number for this action.

[email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=685908
>
> Excerpt:
>
> A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as
> ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
>
> A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched an
> aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for the
> star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the FTC
> said.
>
> The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged users
> to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the FTC said.
>
> "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive spam,
> and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J. Howard
> Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a statement.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:13:10 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

Simple answer is no, Danny.

The straight forward legal/moral/wrong question is answered in a whole different
light regarding people who promise you something and then deliver it.  Our great
colleagues running the Internationalized domains have always meant what the said
and done what they said.

Your closer analogies would be the telecoms overselling and failing to provide
service, or ICANN pretending to regulate registrars and Verisign and not really
doing it.  Even closer is the donations accepted by ICANN when in fact they are
not a public good non-profit.  What you should be looking for as the nexus in
these matters is the intent to deceive.

And so the answer to your question is the exact opposite of what you pose. Now
who in this business intentionally deceives to the point of your detrimental
reliance?

OTOH FTC is political not legal.

Sincerely,
Eric

(the issue of accreditation is a red herring)

[email-masked] wrote:

> The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website raises a
> number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies involved are not
> accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" domain names are not
> usable on the Internet, and that they probably never will be useable.
>
> Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition to
> providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a "coordinator" now
> being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all domains in
> the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being made that
> domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will
> probably never be usable?
>
> Would this claim be applicable to all the registrations previously sold for
> the internationalized domain names that didn't resolve during last year's
> test-bed period?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:13:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam

Leah,

I can't get to any .usa websites, how come they don't resolve?

- -rick

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, L. Gallegos wrote:

>
> It is interesting.  TLD Networks is the company operated by Goolnik,
> who was the individual who "duplicated" the .USA and .GOD TLDs.
> However, he never had operational servers so that they would resolve.  The
> holders of those original TLDs pursued the issue legally as well.  The FTC
> went after Goolnik because fo the spam and deceptive practices as well as
> the fact that the domains did not resolve.  The original TLDs operated by
> ADNS and PCCF are still going well and the domains resolve as they always
> have.  Nether one does any spamming and both are clearly disclaimed as
> being in roots other than the USG.
>
> Thanks, Danny, for bringing up the deceptive practices of some
> scammers out there.
>
> Leah
>
>
> On 11 Mar 2002, at 12:20, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=68590
> > 8
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> > A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> > patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as
> > ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
> >
> > A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched
> > an aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for
> > the star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the
> > FTC said.
> >
> > The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
> > users to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the
> > FTC said.
> >
> > "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
> > spam, and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J.
> > Howard Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a
> > statement. -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in
> > the body of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:26:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam - ADNS response

John and all assembly members,

  This is nice, but did you file an official complaint or this response with
the FTC?  While chatting with them just a few minuets ago, they
have yet to receive any "Official Complaints" on this action when
I inquired.

  We[INEGroup] are considering filing an "Official Complaint"
on this action pending a complete review..

John Palmer wrote:

> A response to the FTC's actions: www.adns.net/NEWS/2002031101.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:20 AM
> Subject: [ga] Court Shuts Down '.Usa' Internet Address Scam
>
> >
> http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=685908
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> > A U.S. court shut down a Web site that capitalized on post-September 11
> > patriotic fervor to sell fake Internet domain names with suffixes such as
> > ".usa" and ".brit," the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.
> >
> > A variety of defendants based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom launched
> an
> > aggressive junk e-mail campaign that urged Internet users to sign up for
> the
> > star-spangled addresses after the hijacking attacks of Sept. 11, the FTC
> > said.
> >
> > The messages linked to a Web site, (http://www.dotusa.com), that urged
> users
> > to reserve addresses such as www.surfin.usa that did not work, the FTC
> said.
> >
> > "These spam scammers conned consumers in two ways. They sent deceptive
> spam,
> > and they sold worthless Web addresses from their Web sites," said J.
> Howard
> > Beales, head of the FTC's consumer-protection division, in a statement.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:45:39 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Some issues raised by today's FTC action

Eric, 

The FTC has taken action predicated on their belief that consumer fraud is 
indicated if attempts are made to register domains that are not "readily 
accessible".

Several ICANN accredited registrars continue to market internationalized 
domain names and special symbol domain names which are not yet and may not be 
fully functional on the Internet and cannot be used for Email Services or any 
other DNS related activity.  

I view such marketing efforts as fraudulent to the same degree as the FTC 
views the .usa marketing efforts as fraudulent.  The only difference in my 
mind is that the former is illegitimately "sanctified" by being a part of an 
"experimental test-bed" operated by ICANN registries and registrars, while 
the latter was sanctioned since it was operated by a non-ICANN-accredited 
experimental registry.  Both produce the same results, profits for the 
"producer community" while consumers are given a product of negligible value.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:56:56 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Resolution on restructuring

Alexander just forwarded the following document to the Names Council 
list.

- ------

Names Council Resolution on restructuring proposal: "The Case for Reform"

Background 

ICANN's core mission is to create an effective private sector 
development process capable of administrative and policy management 
of the Internet's numbering and address allocation systems, based on 
a consensus policy process.  ICANN was created approximately 4 years 
ago, after an extensive international consultative process with the 
broad Internet stakeholder community.  After a number of other 
efforts to create an international approach to privatizing 
management of key technical functions of the Internet, ICANN 
represents a consensus, which drew together a very diverse set of 
stakeholders.  As part of the stakeholder agreements, certain goals 
for ICANN were embodied in the Memorandum of Understanding, signed 
with the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding deliverables to 
demonstrate progress toward the global DNS management and 
coordination. 

ICANN has a fourth anniversary of the MOU in September 30, 2002, and 
faces a serious challenges demonstrating progress on some core 
issues, including relationships with ccTLDs, RIRs and the root 
server operators.  In order to further develop and maintain 
international community support, ICANN must demonstrate broadening 
international participation and support..

The Names Council had established a Structure Task Force to address 
a number of proposals for restructuring; it has drafted an interim 
report on the policy implications of the At Large Study Committee's 
Final Report.  The Task Force was also anticipating receiving the 
ccTLD Supporting Organization draft, when n late February, M.Stuart 
Lynn, ICANN President and CEO released a report to the community 
entitled: "A Case for Reform." 

The report includes an extensive assessment of what ICANN's 
challenges are, describes the critical need to take urgent steps to 
address these challenges, and makes an extensive set of 
restructuring recommendations.  The paper presents the vision that, 
without broad and deep structural changes, sufficient progress will 
not be made in addressing these challenges, thus threatening ICANN's 
ability to succeed, and indeed, survive.  Further, the position 
presented in the paper is that without significant changes in 
structure and funding, ICANN can not make sufficient progress on the 
MOU's core requirements. 

The Call for Reform identifies four areas:
	Board selection and role
	Policy Development and Process
	Transparency and Accountability
	Funding

The paper identifies the priorities as: the participation of key 
stakeholders, avoiding too much process, and the lack of both 
stable, and sufficient funding.  

The paper paints a rather dire view of ICANN's situation, driven by 
these problems, and calls for a restructuring in ways which will 
challenge many of the original consensus agreements among parties, 
including the technical community. 

While different views, and in many cases, serious questions are 
being heard about the solutions which are proposed in the paper, 
there seems to be broad agreement that the paper identifies core 
problem areas where significant progress and improvement is 
critical. 

 Whereas:

The Names Council has created a Structure Task Force, with 
representation of each constituency and the GA, and chaired by the 
NC chair, which is responsible for assessing restructuring 
proposals, including policy making within the DNSO and ICANN's 
decision making, and providing recommendations to the NC based on 
these assessments.  

The first work of the Structure TF was consideration of policy 
aspects related to the final report of the At Large Study Committee 
which is under development as a draft Interim Report of the Task 
Force.  The TF anticipates addressing the imminent ccTLD Supporting 
Organization proposal when it is received.  The TF intends to review 
its recommendations and address additional issues raised in "The 
Case for Reform".

The Names Council acknowledges the critical nature of the 
challenges, which are identified in the "The Case for Reform" and 
the serious implications for ICANN's success, effectiveness and 
survival. 

The Names Council agrees that ICANN needs significant improvement in 
many core areas; among them funding, key stakeholder support, 
participation and relationships; however, the Names Council also 
recognizes that over its short four year existence, significant 
progress has been made in a number of key areas and that parts of 
the current structure are functioning well.  

The Names Council is concerned by the solutions proposed in the 
paper and advises the Board and the Staff that the issues of ICANN 
stability are of priority concern.  The DNSO remains committed to 
the original vision of a consensus, based on bottom up policy 
development process and to private sector leadership. 

Therefore:

The Names Council advises the Board and Staff that the Structure 
Task Force has begun a process to respond to the President's Reform 
Proposal, including development and consideration of alternative 
solutions, and will present preliminary findings in mid April to the 
Names Council at a scheduled NC call. A draft report will be 
completed by May.  
 
The NC further advises the Board, staff and the community that they 
recognize that the problems facing ICANN are significant and call 
for support from interested stakeholders to participate in any 
proven need for restructuring.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:58:26 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on restructuring

On 2002-03-11 20:56:56 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>Alexander just forwarded the following document to the Names 
>Council list.

I should most likely have been clearer in my wording on this: This 
is a resolution for the names council meeting prepared by the 
Structure Task Force.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:21:26 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Some issues raised by today's FTC action

Danny this is good,  but way too simplistic on such a complex matter.

Now assume ICANN embraces that they are a regulatory body (something I doubt
Louis and Andrew would dare do). Then USG regs own them.  Assume they are a Quasi
governmental body, oh then we own them.
Assume they are what they are, a failed decertified for public good non-profit,
in otherwords in de jour, defunct.

Now you go get your IRS, FCC, FTC and DoC boys & girls and put their collective
feet to the fire.  Something will have to give. Salaries are now suspect.  How
can you take a salary from what you know is a defunct not - for - profit. We are
at the point where registrars who pay are defrauding their customers.

This part of the ruling in this matter is regulatory dictum and almost completely
irrelevant, it is like musings of a very old man.  We have not even seen the
exhaustion of administrative remedies yet so it is very non binding.

Walk, don't run my friend!

Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Eric,
>
> The FTC has taken action predicated on their belief that consumer fraud is
> indicated if attempts are made to register domains that are not "readily
> accessible".
>
> Several ICANN accredited registrars continue to market internationalized
> domain names and special symbol domain names which are not yet and may not be
> fully functional on the Internet and cannot be used for Email Services or any
> other DNS related activity.
>
> I view such marketing efforts as fraudulent to the same degree as the FTC
> views the .usa marketing efforts as fraudulent.  The only difference in my
> mind is that the former is illegitimately "sanctified" by being a part of an
> "experimental test-bed" operated by ICANN registries and registrars, while
> the latter was sanctioned since it was operated by a non-ICANN-accredited
> experimental registry.  Both produce the same results, profits for the
> "producer community" while consumers are given a product of negligible value.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:37:47 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

 From a letter dated March 6.

"In the wake of such statements,[the Lynn Staments] I strongly believe it 
is time we
    re-visit the issue and find some solutions to the serious problems
    facing ICANN and the future of Internet governance. While ICANN is
    currently a fundamentally flawed and ineffective governing entity,
    proper oversight by the Committee could help redirect it back to its
    core mission of ensuring the stable and secure management of the
    Internet domain system. Obviously, more fundamental questions also
    need to be addressed, such as whether ICANN is even the most
    appropriate organization to be tasked with such a critical mission,
    which is central to our national security."

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:09:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, at 13:26 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:

> The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website raises a
> number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies involved are not
> accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" domain names are not
> usable on the Internet, and that they probably never will be useable.
>
> Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition to
> providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a "coordinator" now
> being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all domains in
> the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being made that
> domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will
> probably never be usable?

Yes, that not being accredited is a bit weird. But the fraud of this
'registrar' consisted mainly, in my eyes solely, in the domains not
working. There were no nameservers for them. They simply 'sold' a name and
did not provide the service, to wit DNS. The non-ICANN TLD's, which are
carried by alternative roots, do have nameservers. So they do work.  The
service is provided, even if one has to use an alternative root to see
them.

> Would this claim be applicable to all the registrations previously sold for
> the internationalized domain names that didn't resolve during last year's
> test-bed period?

I doubt it. That was presented as an experiment. We knew that it might
fail in some way, even that some domains may be cancelled. If it flies, I
am curious whether I will be allowed to keep [paragraph sign].com. (Sorry,
only ASCII available here.)

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:15:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on restructuring

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Well Thomas, as you know the Structure TF, like most of the
Task Force's that have be formed, is a disaster.  So to use
any of their findings as a basis for anything of significance
or relevance is of little of no value, as has been documented
on this Forum, and the NCDNHC forum on a number of occasions.

  Your refusal to serve on any TF where I or Eric could be on
or one as monitors is stark evidence of the poor idea such
TF's are and have been...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-03-11 20:56:56 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >Alexander just forwarded the following document to the Names
> >Council list.
>
> I should most likely have been clearer in my wording on this: This
> is a resolution for the names council meeting prepared by the
> Structure Task Force.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:19:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Some issues raised by today's FTC action

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, at 14:45 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:

> The FTC has taken action predicated on their belief that consumer fraud is
> indicated if attempts are made to register domains that are not "readily
> accessible".
>
> Several ICANN accredited registrars continue to market internationalized
> domain names and special symbol domain names which are not yet and may not be
> fully functional on the Internet and cannot be used for Email Services or any
> other DNS related activity.
>
> I view such marketing efforts as fraudulent to the same degree as the FTC
> views the .usa marketing efforts as fraudulent.  The only difference in my
> mind is that the former is illegitimately "sanctified" by being a part of an
> "experimental test-bed" operated by ICANN registries and registrars, while
> the latter was sanctioned since it was operated by a non-ICANN-accredited
> experimental registry.  Both produce the same results, profits for the
> "producer community" while consumers are given a product of negligible value.

There is this other difference: There are nameservers for the
internationalized domain names and not for those fruad names. Intern.
names do not work for everything and for everyone, but they do work for
many. If you would like to compare the intern. names with anything,
compare them with TLDs in alternative roots.  These also do work, though
not for everyone. One has to go through some extra trouble of changing
settings or downloading software.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:58:36 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, at 13:26 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > The action taken by the FTC today to shut down the .usa website raises a
> > number of issues.  The FTC alleges that the companies involved are not
> > accredited domain name registrars, that the ".usa" domain names are not
> > usable on the Internet, and that they probably never will be useable.
> >
> > Since when did ICANN accreditation become a necessary precondition to
> > providing domain name registration services?  Is ICANN as a
"coordinator" now
> > being viewed as a "regulator" by US Government agencies?  Are all
domains in
> > the alternate roots now at risk?  On what basis is the claim being made
that
> > domains not in the legacy root "are not usable on the Internet" and will
> > probably never be usable?
>
> Yes, that not being accredited is a bit weird. But the fraud of this
> 'registrar' consisted mainly, in my eyes solely, in the domains not
> working. There were no nameservers for them. They simply 'sold' a name and
> did not provide the service, to wit DNS. The non-ICANN TLD's, which are
> carried by alternative roots, do have nameservers. So they do work.  The
> service is provided, even if one has to use an alternative root to see
> them.
>

Their claim was that they were going to set up nameservers sometime in 2002.
Thats convieniently after mosts people's 30/60 day legal right to protest
charges
on their credit card had passed.

The issue here is that they did not disclose that the domains would not be
visible to
a large part of the internet, except on areas of the website that were too
hidden
or in too fine a print to satisfy the requirements of federal law.

I find it comforting that statements made by FTC officials say that they
don't
intend to go after inclusive namespace TLD registrars unless they try to
"deceive people into thinking that the domains will work like any other Web
Addresses" . http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-857033.html The problem is
that the public may turn away from inclusive namespace TLDs without looking
closer
due to this. Thats life. We move on and continue the education process about
what
ICANN is and who we are.

Legitimate registries have gtld servers for their TLDs and are listed in at
least one
root server network (Thats easy - most inclusive RSNs dont impose nonsense
rules
and charge $50k in lotteries to get listed).  The ADNS .USA is alive and
well
and has been in existence since we filed our application with Jon Postel and
IANA
back in September 1995.

John

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:18:38 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
>  From a letter dated March 6.
> 
> "In the wake of such statements,[the Lynn Staments] I strongly believe it
> is time we
>     re-visit the issue and find some solutions to the serious problems
>     facing ICANN and the future of Internet governance. While ICANN is
>     currently a fundamentally flawed and ineffective governing entity,
>     proper oversight by the Committee could help redirect it back to its
>     core mission of ensuring the stable and secure management of the
>     Internet domain system. Obviously, more fundamental questions also
>     need to be addressed, such as whether ICANN is even the most
>     appropriate organization to be tasked with such a critical mission,
>     which is central to our national security."

There it is, the "national security" trump card played at
long last.  Did anyone ever doubt it would be?  Not I. 
The US never really had any intention of handing control
over the root to anyone, least of all an
pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.  

Thanks for playing ladies and gents, but Yankee Doodle
dandy rigged the game right from the get-go.  Heehaw!  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1074
*************************